Unconditional Moral Surrender

I do not like Barack Obama. I was reminded of how much I dislike him when Mitt Romney recently reappeared in public. Here was a decent, and competent, human being who was rejected in favor of a moral pygmy. For reasons I cannot fathom, the American people preferred four more years of lies, manipulation, and bankruptcy to him.

Now I know this is harsh. But the time has come to be harsh. Once more our president has revealed his true nature. In order to gain political advantage, he has knowingly chosen to injure our nation. Even school children are fair game for his destructive impulses.

Everyone in Washington understands that Barack chose to close the White House to visitors in order to demonstrate how damaging budget cuts would be. They likewise know that he instructed his underlings to find other unnecessary cutbacks in other agencies as well.

This has been called the Washington Monument ploy in that it is a very visible way to arouse public ire. Shut down the Washington Monument, or the White House, and ordinary Americans will demand that something be done—such as rescinding the budget sequester.

To engage in this sort of deception, even when knowledgeable observers see it for what it is, is the height of cynicism. It is to treat the American people as if they are mentally defective. But then again, the American people have swallowed so many lies over the last four years that Obama had reason to believe he could get away with this maneuver.

A cardinal doctrine of contemporary liberalism is that we must accord everyone “unconditional positive regard.” Whatever they do, we must not be too critical. To do so might harm their self-esteem. And so we must let others know that we love them, even though we do not like what they did.

Well, I am a little bit more old-fashioned than that. When you shoot me in the foot, I do not say thank you, may I have another. When I know that you have intentionally sought to injure me, I do not give you positive, but negative regard. In other words, I am furious with you!

Now some people might characterize this reaction as cruel, whereas I consider it appropriate. Morality exists only when people uphold moral conduct. When they tolerate immoral behavior on the grounds that condemning it might make the perpetrator feel bad, they are actually condoning it.

Taken literally “unconditional positive regard” is tantamount to “unconditional moral surrender.” If bad behavior can never be called out for what it is, this is the equivalent of moral abdication. It is to do nothing in the face of wickedness, thereby compounding it.

So I am calling out Barack Obama. I have done so before, and no doubt will do so again. Nor am I alone. This latest piece of presidential mischief may have been a bridge too far. Many other voices have also been raised to object to his transparent manipulation.

The question is, How long will this displeasure last? Will the American people relent when subjected to another charm offensive? Will they agree that the president is basically a nice man and therefore we should be nice to him?

The trouble is that Obama is not nice. He may have a nice smile and a persuasive line of patter, but his actions are not those of a man who is concerned with the well being of the people dependent upon him. He talks a good game, but then he sticks a knife under the rib.

Morality cannot exist when people close their eyes to immorality. It is in particular jeopardy when people consent to corruption in the name of morality. Yes, I have been mean to Barack Obama, but he richly deserves it. And so I will desist only when he changes his ways—although I am not expecting this anytime soon.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University